High Court affirms Miura extradition

The CNMI Supreme Court yesterday affirmed the Superior Court’s decision that ordered the extradition of Kazuyoshi Miura to California where he is facing murder and conspiracy to commit murder charges over the killing of his wife in 1981.

Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan, Associate Justice Alexandro C. Castro, and Justice Pro Tem Jesus C. Borja ruled that Superior Court Associate Judge Ramona V. Manglona’s decision denying Miura’s request for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

In a one-page order issued last night, the justices lifted the CNMI Supreme Court’s Sept. 15, 2008, order staying Miura’s extradition. They did not explain their decision, saying their reasoning in affirming the trial court’s decision will follow in a full opinion.

After listening for over an hour to the arguments yesterday afternoon, Demapan had announced that they are placing the matter under advisement.

“We understand the arguments. We will do our very best to expedite the resolution of the case,” Demapan had said.

That meant the justices will deliberate on the case and will soon issue a ruling.

As this developed, one of Miura’s lawyers, William Fitzgerald, disclosed that if the CNMI High Court denies their appeal, they are going to file a petition for habeas corpus before the U.S. District Court for the NMI.

Fitzgerald said, however, that they don’t know whether the justices will issue a ruling after one day or one week.

“Under advisement is kind of open-ended,” he said.

In an interview after the hearing, Fitzgerald said their main argument is that this is a very unique case that requires a very unique solution. “I think the justices will take that very seriously,” he said.

He said if the CNMI Supreme Court denies their appeal, they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and also file their petition for habeas corpus before the U.S. District Court for the NMI.

“The justices are very good. So I am confident. I think they will consider all the arguments and come out with the right solution,” Fitzgerald said.

Warfield told the media that everything went well at the hearing and that he thinks the justices were receptive to the CNMI government’s arguments.

As to allegations by Miura’s lawyers that the Los Angeles Police Department tried to snatch Miura while his appeal is pending before the CNMI High Court, Warfield said that is not what happened.

He said a suggestion by Miura’s lawyers that California was somehow engaged in some clandestine activity to sneak him out before his appeal could be heard “quite frankly didn’t occur.”

Warfield said when the LAPD detectives found out that Superior Court Associate Judge Ramona Manglona had denied the habeas petition last Sept. 12, they immediately made arrangement to fly here to Saipan as quickly as they could.

“They got here on Monday [Sept. 15]. When they arrived, they found out about the stay and they turned around and left. They didn’t make any inquiries about trying to get him,” he said.

At the hearing, associate justice Alexandro Castro asked Miura’s lawyers for particulars on what errors Judge Manglona made in denying the petition.

Fitzgerald explained that Judge Manglona wasn’t able to take all the facts into consideration.

Fitzgerald said they feel that the District Attorney’s Office in L.A. has not been candid with the CNMI court. “The trial court was not fully aware of what’s going in California,” he said. “Had she understood the facts of what was going on in California, she would have decided differently.”

Fitzgerald said their point is that the CNMI trial court should not decide an issue that the California Superior Court is about to rule on by Sept. 26.

Citing a precedent case, Fitzgerald emphasized that this is very unique situation and a “case of first impression” because California itself is unsure whether it is actually precluded from even prosecuting Miura because of the applicability of California’s statute, which grants him immunity from any further prosecution.

Fitzgerald also read a transcript of the California court proceedings where the judge stated that bringing Miura to L.A. at this time is just a waste of money.

Fitzgerald pointed out that the warrant against Miura is in “very serious question.”

As to what harm will cause Miura if he is extradited to California, the lawyer said their client is here and that he wants the protection of CNMI laws.

“He is entitled to due process,” Fitzgerald said.

In the government’s argument, Warfield said Manglona was right when she pointed out that extradition is a summary and mandatory proceeding.

Warfield said any ruling by the California court is irrelevant because extradition is a summary and mandatory proceeding.

He said the case has been delayed in the CNMI courts for five months now.

But Borja intervened that if Miura loses in this appeal, the next thing he would probably do is go to the federal court where he is not prevented from filing a petition for habeas corpus.

Demapan also stated that if LAPD detectives were able to get Miura out before the high court could order a stay, then Miura’s appeal would then be moot.

Warfield explained that there was no clandestine activity to sneak out Miura.

“They [LAPD] simply got here quickly,” he said.